- USEPA ORD
- Mid-Continent Ecology Division, Duluth, MN
- Tony Schroeder, Dan Villeneuve, Brett Blackwell, Gary Ankley
- Ecosystems Research Division, Athens, GA
- National Center for Computational Toxicolgy
- Mid-Continent Ecology Division, Duluth, MN
- Fish and Wildlife Service
- NOAA Mussel Watch
- U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
- USGS
- WI, OH, NY, MN, and MI Water Science Centers
- Columbia Environmental Research Center
- Upper Mississippi Environmental Science Center
- St. Cloud University
Wednesday, May 27, 2015
Multi-agency team
Objectives
- 58 Great Lakes Tributaries sampled from 2010-2013 for GLRI
- Trace organic compounds measured in samples
- Sampling methods used: Water samples and passive samplers
- Adverse biological effect potential based on chemistry results
- Sites with greatest potential
- Chemicals with greatest potential
- Different methods for biological effect evaluation
- ToxCast-based evaluation
- Water quality guideline-based evaluation
- Comparison of these two methods
Study sites: Tributaries
Water quality data collected
| Water Samples: Organic Waste Compounds | Passive Samples |
|---|---|
| PAHs (6) | PAHs (33) |
| Insecticides (6) | Organic Waste Compounds (53) |
| Herbicides (7) | Organochlorine Pesticides (32) |
| Fire retardants (4) | PBDEs (5) |
| Pharmaceuticals (3) | Pharmaceuticals (31) |
| Plasticizers (5) | PCB (sum of total) |
| Detergent metabolites (8) | |
| Antimicrobial disinfectants (3) | |
| Solvents (2) | |
| Fuels (4) | |
| Dye/pigments (1) | |
| Flavors & fragrances (10) | |
| Sterols (4) | |
| Misc (3) |
Screening Endpoints Used in Analysis
- ToxCast:
- "High throughput screening assays"
- Expose living cells or isolated protiens
- Screens for potential adverse biological effects
- Much is focused on gaining information on biological pathways
- 1860 compounds
- 821 endpoints
- AC50 used for this analysis (concentration at which activity is 50% of its maximum)
- Exposure Activity Ratio (EAR) = concentration / AC50
- "High throughput screening assays"
- Water quality guidelines
- Water sample analysis (not complete for passive samplers yet)
- Established water quality guidelines
- USEPA
- Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment
- USGS
- Literature
- Established water quality guidelines
- Water sample analysis (not complete for passive samplers yet)
Screening Endpoints Matches
- ToxCast
- Water samples
- 40 compounds of 65 total
- Insecticide, Herbicide, Human Drug, Non Prescription, Flavor/fragrance, PAH, Plasticizer, Other, Solvent, Fire Retardant, Antioxidant, Detergent Metabolites, Fuel, Antimicrobial Disinfectant
- Passive samplers
- 51 compounds of 162 total
- PAHs, Pharmaceuticals, Other, Detergent metabolites, Flavor/Fragrance, Herbicide, Insecticide, OC Pesticides, Plasticizer, Solvent, Antimicrobial disinfectant
- Water samples
- Water Quality Guidelines
- Water samples
- 24 compounds of 65 total
- PAH, Herbicide, Insecticide, Fuel, Plasticizer, Solvent, Other
- Passive samplers
- Not yet complete
- Water samples
ToxCast: Water Sample Chemical Summary
ToxCast: Water Sample Site Summary
ToxCast: Water Samples Map
Color: maxEAR Size: numer of chemicals with hits
ToxCast: Passive Data Map
Color: maxEAR Size: numer of chemicals with hits
ToxCast: Comparison of Water Sample and Passive Sample Results
Color: maxEAR Size: numer of chemicals with hits
Water Quality Guidelines Results
Comparisons
| ToxCast: WS Chem | ToxCast: WS Class | ToxCast: Passive Chem | ToxCast: Passive Class | WQG: WS Chem | WQG: WS Class |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DEET | Insecticide | Fluorene | PAHs | Fluoranthene | PAH |
| Metolachlor | Herbicide | Aspirin | Pharmaceuticals | Pyrene | PAH |
| Atrazine | Herbicide | Erythromycin | Pharmaceuticals | Benzo[a]pyrene | PAH |
| Caffeine | Human Drug, Non Prescription | Naphthalene | PAHs | Atrazine | Herbicide |
| Benzophenone | Flavor/fragrance | Gemfibrozil | Pharmaceuticals | Anthracene | PAH |
| Naphthalene | PAH | 1,4-Dichlorobenzene | Other | Carbaryl | Insecticide |
| Diethyl phthalate | Plasticizer | 4-Octylphenol | Detergent metabolites | Metolachlor | Herbicide |
Challenges with this work
- Detection levels
- ToxCast: Some compounds have adverse effects lower than analytical reporting limits
- Water samples
- Dichlorvos (min EAR = 36)
- Metolachlor (min EAR = 14)
- Cotinine (min EAR = 7)
- Naphthalene (min EAR = 1.7)
- dl-Menthol (min EAR = 1.4)
- Compounds included
- The numbers are increasing, but many are still not included
- ToxCast and water quality guidelines/literature
- The numbers are increasing, but many are still not included
- Interpretation of ToxCast in the environmental setting
Work Remaining For This Analysis
- ToxCast
- Chemical mixtures: how to evaluate within ToxCast results
- Zebrafish developmental toxicity testing (subset of ToxCast chemicals)
- Passive samplers
- Compile established water quality guidelines and compare
- Toxicity
- Endocrine disruptors
- Compile established water quality guidelines and compare
- Endocrine disruptors
- Comparison of estrogenic equivalents to ToxCast results
- Factors that may influence biological effects
- Seasonality
- Hydrologic condition
- Land use
- Use all methods to summarize potential effects by site and chemical
- ToxCast direct environmental sample analysis
- Comparison with analysis using water chemistry data alone with ToxCast
Summary
- Multiple methods can be used to evaluate potential biological effects
- Different conclusions may be reached based on methods
- Combining methods:
- Note commonalities and differences in final evaluations
- Adverse effect potential exists and urban and agricultural sites
- Multiple contaminant classes could be influential
- The classes that appear to be of largest concern include:
- PAHs
- Pesticides
- Pharmaceuticals
- Keep in mind the limited chemicals and classes included here
- Much work yet to be done to better understand how to use these methods effectively
Questions
